Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete, as useful material has been merged to the mainspace article. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite[edit]

Created by a sockpuppet of Russavia, who is indefinably blocked and will no longer be working on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Looks like a pretty decent article, and it's stupid process-~~wankery~~wonkery to delete good stuff just because of who created it - I'll be happy to review/copy-edit it and take to to article space myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC) (see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: No problem with that Boing, go ahead and then close this out mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you mean wonkery? Or are you calling me a wanker? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry, I did mean wonkery - I hope my slip wasn't Fruedian ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and it was the general "delete" culture I was critising, not you personally -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Question to Boing: have you checked how much of this draft is actually new and a worthwhile improvement, as compared with the actual existing article Druk Air? At a first glance it appears to be pretty much the same text. Why is a separate rewrite draft even necessary? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've compared the two. A lot of it looks like improvements to citation formats - completing missing parameters and the like - and I think the newer version is good enough to move to replace the article. The only problem I see is that it would need a history merge to retain the history of both the original article and the updated version, and I can't do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If all the substantive changes were by Russavia or his socks, and you want to take responsibility for it under WP:BAN, you could simply copy it over into the main article with a comment in the edit summary ("content authored by ..."); that would be enough to satisfy attribution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, thanks, I'll do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, first problem: "We are sorry, your edit can not be completed at this time. Your contribution appears to contain a link to the archiving service archive.is. In accordance with Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC, links to archive.is are not allowed to be added to Wikipedia. Please feel free to make your contribution with a non-archived link or a link from a different archiving service (such as web.archive.org). If you believe this message is in error, we apologize for the inconvenience, and request that you may please report this error for correction and assistance" - but I can't find any archive.is links in it! There are quite a few dead links replaced, but using web.archive.org as recommended -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated Druk Air with the new changes, taking out a couple of prohibited archive.today links -- if it's OK and the attribution is adequate, I think we can safely delete this now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.